1. Name.— Rabbinic tradition has fixed the pointing Mishnah (∏2∣^0) by giving its status constructus as Mishnath. Although the word Mishnah is not found in the Bible, it is no doubt a classical Hebrew term, signifying something closely akin to Mishneh (which term occurs more than once there), as may be seen on comparing Mikvah with Milçveh, Miknah with Mikneh, Mdalah with Mdaleh, and Mar ’ ah with Mar ’ eh, each two of which are, however they may vary in practical application, unquestionably synonymous terms. The practical significations of Mishnah are seven in number:·—(1) repetition, i.e., tradition: as such it is the equivalent of the δeυτepω<τius of Epiphanias, the traditiones et δευτερώσεις of Jerome, the δευτεpωσις of Justinian, and the ΠΌΡ mi∏S (“t h β second to the law ”) of the Arukh A; (2) recitation from memory, in contradistinction to reading from a book; (3) study: as such it is the equivalent of Midrash in the former part of its third signification; (4) instruction: as such it is the equivalent of Midrash in the latter part of its third signification; (5) system, style, view, line of study and instruction: as such it is identical with the Talmudical Shittah ; (6) a paragraph of the Mishnah·. it is invariably employed in this sense in the Babylonian Talmud, and is identical with the word Halakhah, used for the same purpose, in the Palestinian Talmud; and (7) the collection of the decisions of the whole “oral law,” i,e., the Mishnah in the concrete sense. The word Mishnah has three different plurals :—(1) the traditional Mishnayoth for signification (7), formed on the analogy of Mikvaoth (not, as some think, on that of Mikraoth or Midrashoth) ; (2) the correct, though questioned, Mishniyyoth for signification (6), formed on the analogy of Parshiyyoth from Parashah (or Par shah), not to speak of that of Ma t asiyyoth from Ma t aseh∙, (3), the somewhat inelegant, but correct, Mishnoth, which also serves for signification (6). Significations (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) have, however inconsistent it may appear when one takes into consideration their respective equivalents, no plural whatever. So much for the Hebrew Mishnah. The Aramaic Mathnitho will be spoken of later.

2. Contents and Nature.— The Mishnah consists chiefly of Halakhah·, This word, derived from the root Halokh C≈jS∏), to go, is synonymous with Minhag (custom, practice) and Mishpat (rule), &c. 9 there is, comparatively speaking, little Agadah to be found in it. It is not, however, as many think, either a commentary on the Halakhic portions of the Pentateuch, or on the ordinances of the Sopherim, or on both together. It rather presupposes the knowledge of, and respect for, both the Mosaic and the Sopheric laws, and it only discusses, and finally decides on, the best mode and manner of executing these. The discussions and eventual decisions to be found in the Mishnah owe their existence principally to deep meditation on these two kinds of laws, notably on the former, by the rabbis of various ages, but chiefly by those who lived fifty years before and one hundred and fifty years after the rise of Christianity, the names of whom it faithfully gives, along with their respective discussions and decisions. There are but few cases to be found in the Mishnah which would critically come under the denomination of an Halakhah le-Mosheh mis-Sinai, i.e., an explanation (of a law) as directly given by God to Moses, and in uninterrupted succession received from him by the rabbis. Several cases given under this name in the Mishnah are not bona fide cases; for the test of such an Halakhah is that it must never have been contested by any one.

3. Method.— A Mishnah, if genuine, never begins with a passage of the Pentateuch, and even comparatively seldom brings direct proof from or gives reference to it. When there is any exception to this rule it will be found, on close examination, either that such a paragraph belongs to a very early age (that of the Sopherim), or that it is to be found in another work of the “oral law,” and is simply copied in the Mishnah, or, what is more likely, that, if independent, it belongs to a very late age, or, finally, that the proof or the reference thus given is only a later addition. One example of the true method of the Mishnah will, perhaps, better illustrate the foregoing statement than a sheet full of theorizing on the subject; and this one example will the more surely suffice because of its mixed (Mosaic and Sopheric) character. It is the very first paragraph of the whole Mishnah, and runs thus: “From what time (of the day) does (may, should) one read the Shemd (‘the taking upon oneself the yoke of the heavenly kingdom ’) in the evening ?” The Mishnah does not begin: One is in duty bound to read the Shemd in the evening, because it is written (Deut. vi. 7), “And when thou liest down.” For, in the first place, the law to read the Shemd evening and morning is not unquestionably Mosaic, as the words, “And thou shalt talk of them, &c.,” do not refer to this passage of the law particularly, but rather to the words of the Pentateuch in general; and, secondly, it is needless to say that one is in duty bound to recite the Shemd twice a day, since every Jew readily acknowledges this duty and executes it, although it is not Mosaic. This duty of reading the Shemd, the grounds on which this duty rests, and how it is best fulfilled, are fully and ably discussed, developed, and finally settled in that part of the Talmud called Gemara, —the business of which it is to discuss the words of the Mishnah and to show the sources of the tradition, and eventually the passage in the Pentateuch (if on such the case rest) from which the respective disputants had derived their views, &c.

4. Purpose.— Although it is a book containing Halakhic decisions, the Mishnah was never intended, as many think, to enable the reader thereof to decide from it immediately. This mistake is old and widely spread,—but a mistake nevertheless. The purpose of the Mishnah was and is simply to exhibit the development of the “oral law” and the view taken of this development by the rabbis of various times. For this reason one finds side by side with the opinions of the majority those also of the minority, which latter are very carefully given. But why, since these opinions of the minority can have no decisional effect? The Mishnah itself (‘ Eduyyoth, u i. 5) answers this question: it is that the teacher or the judge of later ages may be thus enabled, if he have good grounds for taking a view different from that of the majority as given hundreds of years before, to reverse the old decision, by forming, on the strength of the example before him, with others who agree with him (or without them, if only one vote was wanted to reverse the majority) a fresh majority. Thus the Jewish “oral law” can never become ossified like the laws of the Medes and Persians.

5. Language.— The Mishnah is, on the whole, written in almost pure Hebrew; and even the originally nonHebrew words (Aramaic, Greek, Latin, &c.) are so skilfully Hebraized that they are a most creditable testimony to the linguistic powers both of many of the disputants mentioned in it, whose very words are in most cases given, and of the editor or editors who revised them.

6. Age and Authorship.— R. Yehudah Hannasi (the Prince), the reputed author (in reality only the principal and best among the editors) of the- Mishnah, was born before the year 140 of the Christian era. His name was in full Yehudah b. Shime'on b. Gamliel b. Shime'on b. Gamliel b. Shime'on b. Hillel. On account of his holy living he was surnamed Rabbenu Hakkadosh, and on account of his great learning and authority he was called simply “Rabbi” (“My Teacher” par excellence). Rabbi and his time, however, are no terminus a quo for the composition of the Mishnah. For, not to speak of many isolated Mishniyyoth which can be brought home to R. Meir, to R. 'Akibah, to Hillel, to Yose b. Yo'ezer, and to others, even to the earlier Sopherim, b we find that R. Yose b. Halaphta of the 1st century already quotes the beginning and ending of a whole Mishnic treatise (Kelim ), and that in the same century (or very early in the 2d) another treatise consisting of early testimonies ^Eduyyoth ) was put into order. Moreover, although the phrases Mishnath R. Eli t ezer b. Ya t akob and Mishnath R. t Akibah do simply signify the systems, styles, and views of these two eminent teachers, there can be little doubt that they and others besides them, presided over colleges in which the whole Halakhic matter was systematically treated and regularly gone through. Nor are Rabbi and his time for the composition of the Mishnah a terminus ad quern, for the Mishnah was not brought to a close till a very long time afterwards. Not only did R. Hiyya Rabbah, R. Hosha'yah Rabbah, and Shime'on bar Kappara redact Mishnayoth, ™ but in the Mishnah before us notices are actually found which reach to the end of the 3d century, if not even later. The statement that Rabbi was the first to write down the Mishnah is untrue, because the thing is impossible. For the two Talmuds, of which that of Babylonia was not finished before the 6th century (if then), know, certainly, nothing of the writing down of the Mishnah. On the contrary, their language throughout presupposes the Mishnah in their time to have been what its name indicates, a repetition, i.e., a thing acquired by continual recitation, because, like the other works of the “oral law ” ( Torah shebbe al peh), it was to be, and was, handed down orally. As for the difficulty of keeping in memory such a stupendous and vast work as the Mishnah, it is sometimes forgotten in this controversy that memory was aided by a great variety of mnemotechnic means, such as numbers and names of teachers, and by the existence of other works of the “oral law,” which, although they also were not written down, could be easily kept in memory because they rested on letters, words, and verses of the written Pentateuch. Anyhow, there is ample evidence, both negative and positive, that the Mishnah as we now have it was not committed to writing in the times of Rabbi or for long afterwards. But it certainly does not follow that no merit is due to Rabbi in connexion with the Mishnah. His merit in connexion with it is great in every way. For (1) Rabbi was himself a link in the chain of tradition, since he had “received” from his own father and so on up to his ancestor Hillel and even higher; (2) he gave in the Mishnah his own decisions, in most cases in accordance with those of the famous R. Meir, which are thus in a great part secured to us; (3) in giving his own decisions he preserved to us also a good many decisions of the teachers of the 2d century; (4) in collecting all these decisions he anxiously ascertained the genuine formulas of the older Mishniyyoth· ™ (5) he did not merely reproduce the formulas which he esteemed the best, but discussed them anew in his own college, which was composed of men of the highest eminence, as is well known; (6) although he gave on the whole the very language of the teachers who preceded him, he gauged it, guarding it against the barbarisms which are so plentiful in the other works of the “oral law”; and (7) he scattered the Mishnah broadcast (though only by word of mouth) over all Palestine and Babylonia by means of the disciples who flocked to him from all parts of those countries. If the Mishnah, as it now exists, is not entirely his, it certainly belongs to him in a great measure and in more than one sense.

7. Value and Appreciation.— Whatever can be said in favour of the Agadah applies with equal if not greater force to the Mishnah, as the latter is a canonical and therefore more reliable work of the “oral law.” The Mishnah is one of the richest mines of archaeology which the world possesses. But it waits yet for the master touch to break the spell which holds it bound. Great, however, as the value of the Mishnah is, its popularity has never been steady, but has been continually fluctuating, and that for various reasons. Even Rabbi in his time had to appeal for due attention to it. Whilst it was neglected in troublous times by the masses, who ran after the A gadah, which, besides being consoling, needed no particular study, it was, in prosperous times, neglected by the rabbis themselves through the study of the Bible and the Talmud. And much more was this the case when the Talmud had developed from a mere studious activity to two concrete works of large size.

8. The Ultimate Writing Down of the Mishnah.— The troubles of the unhappy Jews had multiplied everywhere. The masses, as already stated, preferred, in consequence of these troubles, the Agadah. But the number of the learned also diminished through these troubles day by day; and the comparatively few that remained preferred more and more the Talmud (in Palestine the Palestinian and in Babylonia the Babylonian), which was a better field for the exercise of their ingenuity. The fate of the Mishnah would have been sealed had it not been ultimately written down. But the writing down of Haldkhah en masse had been prohibited in early times. Two considerations, however, ultimately removed all scruples. (1) It was a time to do something for God, even if by such doings His law was apparently destroyed. 1 Let one (and a minor) law be disregarded, so that many (and higher) laws be preserved. The Hatakhoth of the Mishnah were numerous and the students few; the power of tyranny increased and that of the memory decreased by reason of the persecution. (2) The language of the Mishnah, although pure, and indeed purer than the language of several books of the Bible, was so concise and terse that it could not be understood without a commentary; and, therefore, even after being written down, it would virtually retain its oral character.

9. Recensions. — The Mishnah has three principal recensions :—(1) the Mishnah os, presented in the work standing by itself; (2) that on which the Palestinian Talmud rests; and (3) that of the Babylonian Talmud. The first-named and the last-named Mishnayoth have always been known as complete; the second, however, was supposed for several hundred years to be imperfect, lacking four Perakim in Shabbτth, two entire Massekhtoth in the Seder Nezikin, the whole of the Seder Kodoshim, and by far the greater part of the Seder Tohoroth. 2 But since 1869 this recension also has been known to have been always complete; and it is to be found in its entirety in a MS. purchased in that year for the University Library of Cambridge (Add. 470. 1). Besides these three there are many minor recensions, touching, however, only isolated readings. These last are to be attributed chiefly to copyists. The origin of the difference between the principal recensions is to be sought in the following two facts :—(1) Rabbi had himself gone twice through the Mishnah and had himself considerably altered the wording of the text; 3 and (2) his successors in early and late times had wilfully altered and corrected the original text.

10. Divisions and Detailed Contents of the Mishnah.— The Mishnah in all recensions is divided into six Sedarim (orders), each of which contains a number of Massekhtoth i (treatises), which stand in connexion with one another. These are subdivided into Perakim (chapters), and these again into Halakhoth or Mishniyyoth (paragraphs called Mishnoth). 6 The number of the Sedarim is six, that of the Massekhtoth sixty, 6 and that of the Perakim 523, or, with a fourth Perek to Bikkurim, 524. 7 The following is a scheme of the whole Mishnah. 6

I. Zera'im (on Agriculture, preceded by the Treatise on Thanksgivings 8 ). (1) Berakhoth (blessings), in nine chapters; (2) Pcah (Lev. xix. 9, Ac.), in eight chanters; (3) Dcmai (fruit, grain, &c., doubtful if tithed), in seven chapters; (4) KiΓayim (mixtures of plants, animals, and garments respectively), in nine chapters; (5) Shebi'ith (year of release), in ten chapters; (6) Terumoth (gifts to the priests), in eleven chapters; (7) Ma'aser Sheni i6 (Deut. xiv. 22-27), in five chapters; (8) Ma'ascr Rishon, otherwise Ma'ascroth (Levitical tithes), in five chapters; (9) Hallah (Num. xv. 19-21), in four chapters; (10) 'Orlah (Lev. xix. 23), in three chapters; and (11) Bikkurim (Deut, xxvi. 1-10), in three (commonly four) chapters.

II. Mo’ed (on Festival Times). (1) Shabbath (Sabbath), in twenty-four chapters; (2) , Erubin (mixtures, i.e., ideal union of divided spaces), in ten chapters; (3) Pcsah (commonly Pesahim, i.e., Passover), in ten chapters; (4) Kippurim (commonly Y^oma, i.e., “the day” [of atonement]), in eight chapters; (5) Shekalim (Exod. XXX. 12-15), in eight chapters; (6) Sukkah (Lev. 'xxiii. 34-43), in five chapters; (7) Betsah (“an egg,” so called from the beginning of the treatise; also Yom Tob, i.e., on work prohibited, or permitted, on festivals), in five chapters; (8) Bosh Hasshanah (on the various kinds of new year, as religious or civil, the king’s accession and coronation, &c.), in four chapters; (9) Tàaniyyoth (fast-days), in four chapters; (10) Megillah (reading of the book of Esther, other readings, &c.), in four chapters; (11) Hagigah (festival-offerings), in three chapters; (12) Mashkin (so called from the beginning of the treatise, but commonly Mo'ed Katan, on work prohibited, or permitted, on the middle holidays of Passover and Tabernacles), in three chapters.

III. Nashim (Women). (1) Nashim (so called from the first distinctive word of the treatise, but commonly Yebamoth, on sisters-in-law, the levitate, &c.), in sixteen chapters; (2) Kethuboth (marriage-pacts, settlements, &c.), in thirteen chapters; (3) Nedarim (vows), in eleven chapters; (4) Nazir (Num. vi. 2-21), in nine chapters; (5) Gittin (bills of divorcement and other bills), in nine chapters; (6) Kiddushin (betrothal and marriage), in four chapters; (7) Sota (mostly Sotah, Num. v. 12-31), in nine chapters.

IV. Nezikim, commonly Nezikin (Damages, &c.; see Exod. xxi., xxii., &c.). (1) Nezikin (commonly Bobo Kammo, the Former Gate, in ten chapters; Bobo Metsi'o, the Middle Gate, in ten chapters; and Bobo Bathro, the Last Gate, in ten chapters”), in thirty chapters; (2) Synhedrin (courts of justice, &c.), in eleven chapters; (3) Makkoth (“forty stripes save one,” &c.), in three chapters; (4) Shebuoth (oaths, &c.), in eight chapters; (5) 'Eduyyoth (testimonies) or 'Idiyyoth (chiefest or best things 12 ), in eight chapters; (6) 'Abodah Zarah (idolatry), in five chapters; (7) Aboth (see Midrash, p. 286), in five chapters; (8) Horayoth (judicial errors, teachings, and decisions), in three chapters.

V. Kodoshim (Holy Things). (1) Zebahim 13 (sacrifices), in fourteen chapters; (2) Menahoth (meat-offerings), in thirteen chapters; (3) Shehitath Hullin (slaying animals for common food; commonly Hullin, or common food), in twelve chapters; (4) Be-khoroth (the first-born of beast and man), in nine chapters; (5) 'Arakhim, commonly Erachin (on valuations; see Lev. xxvii. 2-33), in nine chapters; (6) Temurah (Lev. ix. 10, 33), in seven chapters; (7) Karethoth, not Kerithoth (sins the punishment of which is excision), in six chapters; (8) Meila,h (Num. v. 6, 7), in six chapters; (9) Middoth (description of the temple and its measurements; see Midrash, p. 286), in five chapters; (10) Tamid (perpetual or daily sacrifice), in six (commonly arranged in seven) chapters; (11) Kinnim (sacrifices of birds), in three chapters.

VI. Tohoroth (Purifications). (1) Kelim (impurities of vessels), in thirty chapters; (2) Oholoth (Num. xix. 14-16, &c.), in eighteen chapters; (3) Negàim (plague of leprosy in man, house, and garment), in fourteen chapters; (4) Parah (Num. xix. 1-19), in twelve chapters; (5) Tohoroth (euphemism for impurities), in ten chapters; (6) Mikvaoth (religious baths), in ten chapters; (7) Niddah (Lev. xv. 19-33), in ten chapters; (8) Makhshirim (liquids 1 This is a somewhat...